Chomsky makes several apt points, I'll mention just two. First, the only predictable thing about Trump is that he's unpredictable. Second, it would be salutary if Trump were to reduce tension with Russia, and put an end to the military provocations by NATO and the US.

As well they should. Of course, this is all part of a concerted effort by libertarians and in some cases Ayn Rand fanatics to find a foothold in the universities. At least they care about "ideas" (in a fashion)!

Technological science has shattered the worldviews of all traditional cultures subjected to it, at times provoking reactionary religious responses that only underscore the traumatic force of this worldwide development. Yet, as I argue, this world-colonizing force is not neutral. The anticipatory projection and world-building characteristic of scientific theorization are grounded in a practical comportment, so that the essence of technology or Craft is ontologically prior to theoretical science. In other words, science is always already Technoscience. Moreover the theoretical concepts and methodologies involved in predictive calculation and in crafting frameworks that model and mold the world are derived from pre-conceptual ideas of an aesthetic character, namely Prometheus and Atlas—titanic gods with a Greek genealogy and a cosmopolitan promise.

Diabolically, this reveals itself through attention to what it is about Nature that eludes the grasp of theorization. The ideas or idealities foundational to Technoscience are not abstract, as the concepts derived from them are. Rather, they are spectral personae. The mathematical and geometric structure of scientific projections cannot model those phenomena that most strikingly manifest the spectrality of Nature. These so-called "paranormal" phenomena are perfectly normal in animals and even simpler organisms still guided by instinct. It is our hypertrophied technical intellect that has atrophied them, but they can be regained through a cultivation of intuition. Indeed, only aesthetic intuition can consciously recognize the specters of Technoscience and transform our hitherto unconscious relationship with them to one wherein we are superhumanly empowered by embodying them rather than experiencing them as alienating instrumental forces.

ANOTHER: Reader Christopher Faille writes with an apt observation: "The abstract of Jorjani's dissertation you sent along makes him seem, predictably enough, a bit like Heidegger. This Nature worship, technophobia, worshipful reversion to Greek myths ... this is the common coin of brown shirts when they're doing their best to be obscure, intellectual, and high-brow."

MORE INSIGHT INTO THE NEONAZI from this bizarre essay. (Thanks to Kathryn Pogin for the pointer.)

Many campuses are confronting issues related to the status of undocumented students, whose legal position may be threated in a Trump Administration. This letter from faculty to the U of Chicago Administration is illustrative of some of the concerns. A similar letter at Penn produced this response from University President Amy Gutmann. The good news is that Senator Lindsey Graham, a very conservative Senator from South Carolina, is already preparing legislation to protect these students whose status was protected by executive action by President Obama that Trump could repeal. He believes it will pass "overwhelmingly," which is hopeful.

I view this as a good development in an otherwise very bad situation, one that will reduce the risk of nuclear war. As a career military officer, he understands what nuclear weapons are, unlike Dopey Donald Chump ("DDC" for short), and his writings indicate a commitment primarily to maintaining combat-ready ground forces. (Mattis is also an opponent of torture, a supporter of the Iran nuclear deal, but a harsher critic of Putin than Trump.) DDC is clearly intimidated by military people, and so will hopefully do what he is told. The fact that Mattis doesn't watch TV and reads widely are also positives (and makes for an amusing contrast with DDC).

While sometimes unavoidable, anonymity in online posts should be used judiciously.

In what possible sense is anonymity "sometimes unavoidable"? One can either post using one's name or not. And what constitutes "judicious" usage of anonymity? Surely, for example, a blog like Feminist Philosophers with many pseudonymous posters operating for years under their pseudonyms--e.g., "Philodaria," "Monkey," "Magical Ersatz," "Lady Day," "Prof Manners"--are not using anonymity "judiciously" but continuously, effectively shielding themselves from being accountable for what they write. And such anonymity is clearly avoidable, as others (for example, the philosophers Anne Jacobson and Jennifer Saul) post under their own names at the very same blog.

(My real hope, I confess, is that he picks the retired Marine General James Mattis for Defense Secretary--this matters, because a career military officer like Mattis understands what nuclear weapons are, unlike Dopey Donald Chump.)

The former (by a "Pedro Pan" child who fled Cuba in the early 1960s) is devoid of evidence for its assertions, some of which are pretty obviously false, while the latter is mostly anecdotal, but from someone who less obviously has an axe to grind. Probably the truth is somewhere inbetween, though only if Cuba becomes a more "open" society will we be able to find out.

I'm on vacation in Turkey for a couple of days. I tried to read your blog from here, but it has been banned by the government.

Congratulations! I guess this means that it is really influential! I asked a friend to translate the text on the attached screenshot; it seems that the Turkish government is using the same type of firewall as the government of China.

It may be that Turkey is doing what China did a number of years ago, namely, blocking all "typepad" accounts. Comments are open if anyone has insight.

Various readers have sent this silly list of anti-American, anti-free speech faculty, or something like that. We've seen these lists before, and they fade away fairly quickly because, "Who cares?" The organizers of this one are especially stupid: when it first appeared, they had both my colleagues Eric Posner and Judge Richard Posner on the list--Eric for noting that private schools can regulate student speech, and maybe some schools should since their students are children; and Richard...well, there are so many possible reasons. But now they're gone from the list, I guess someone told the ding-dongs that, "Those guys are on the right," or something like that. Here's what I suggest: ignore it. It's a badge of honor to be on it, of course, but it's just a publicity stunt by pathetic right-wingers. And if you can't ignore it, self-nominate!

1. Undermining of democratic institutions. (Condorcet winner: wins contests with all other choices)

2. Conservative Supreme Court for a generation or more. loses to Undermining of democratic institutions. by 175–168

3. Emboldening of racists and bigots. loses to Undermining of democratic institutions. by 187–157, loses to Conservative Supreme Court for a generation or more. by 203–140

4. Persecution (legal and/or political) of Muslim-Americans. loses to Undermining of democratic institutions. by 208–124, loses to Emboldening of racists and bigots. by 205–113

5. Systematic corruption of government. loses to Undermining of democratic institutions. by 199–136, loses to Persecution (legal and/or political) of Muslim-Americans. by 167–163

6. Abridgment of freedom of the press. loses to Undermining of democratic institutions. by 231–94, loses to Systematic corruption of government. by 183–144

7. Financial crisis results from mismanagement and/or erratic behavior. loses to Undermining of democratic institutions. by 227–107, loses to Abridgment of freedom of the press. by 176–148

8. Tax and other giveaways to the rich and corporations. loses to Undermining of democratic institutions. by 221–126, loses to Financial crisis results from mismanagement and/or erratic behavior. by 169–164

9. Abridgment of freedom of speech. loses to Undermining of democratic institutions. by 241–83, loses to Tax and other giveaways to the rich and corporations. by 181–156

10. Persecution (legal and/or political) of Hispanics. loses to Undermining of democratic institutions. by 229–107, loses to Abridgment of freedom of speech. by 156–152

Most of these were probably on my "top ten" as well, and certainly #1 and #4 were in my top five (I think Hispanic citizens are at risk too, but Muslim-Americans are quite directly in the crosshairs of some of the more venal characters surrounding Trump). But I'm impressed by the optimism of my readers, since my #1 fear was annihilation of civilization in a nuclear holocaust--but that's just my sunny disposition at work, I guess. I am less worried about the Supreme Court: the super-legislature has a limited jurisdiction, and the damage it can do is usually short-lived, and remediable elsewhere.

Thoughts from readers? You're welcome to explain your own votes, note omissions from the survey, elaborate on your concerns etc.

This is very significant, and could actually help restore democracy to the United States (both parties gerrymander, but the Republicans have been more aggressive about it). (The theory of the case was developed and argued by one of my colleagues.) It is only because of gerrymandering that the Republicans have a majority in the House of Representatives.

Will they pay attention? God knows, but it can't hurt to vote down the most wicked stuff. So vote! (And try to vote for some things as highly important: e.g., repealing the TPP agreement, improving veterans' healthcare, no more "regime-change" in foreign policy etc.)

UPDATE: A couple of readers note the absence of climate change from the list, which was an error of omission. I don't think it's the most serious issue, but I wish I had remembered to include it. I'll open a discussion of the results on Wednesday, so readers can mention other omissions.

You know we're falling through the looking-glass when the "blowhard and buffoon" Alan Dershowitz (as one of my liberal, Jewish and very pro-Israel colleagues called him) is cautioning people to be cautious about charges of anti-Semitism. This is a good takedown of Dershowitz's nonsense. All that said, I'm sure that if Bannon is an anti-Semite, he's kept it well under wraps, given the influence of Trump's son-in-law, an orthodox Jew. Bannon is a much bigger threat to Muslims in America than to Jews.

This seems like a plausible analysis. Shorter version: left-wing Jews are traitors to their race, Bannon admires a state defined by race/ethnicity (plus it's a good place to send the Jews when the time comes...).

This seems like a sober and accurate analysis, and echoes some of what Mearsheimer observed. Perhaps the most important observation is that he has actually been consistent over several decades in his thinking about certain issues related to foreign policy. The author is right that a total withdrawal of the U.S. from the world stage would cause great instability, political and economic, but a partial withdrawal (e.g., stop threatening Russia over Ukraine, stop trying to move NATO to Russia's border) would probably be salutary.

Unsurprisingly, some philosophy teachers think so, but that's just self-serving nonsense. Anyone who spends a little time studying philosophers under Nazism, including all the Kantians who came out for National Socialism, will realize right away that, to quote Nietzsche, philosophers "are all advocates who do not want to be called by that name, and for the most part even wily spokesmen for their prejudices which they baptize 'truths'" (Beyond Good and Evil, sec. 5)

(Thanks to Michael Swanson for the pointer.)

UPDATE: You can get a sense of the irrelevance of philosophers by looking at how some are rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic as a putative "response." I have a radical suggestion: how about philosophy teachers design their curriculum and syllabi with an eye to making sure students master the subject-matter? Altering the curriculum because of Trump is as pointless as altering it to pander to this or that supposed constituency.

ANOTHER: One adult philosopher has some more concrete suggestions (see Prof. Wolff's blog generally for others, as well as sensible analysis and commentary).

I apologize for doing less philosophy-related blogging lately, but the gallows does indeed "concentrate" one's mind. I will return to pertinent philosophy-related news, though given the catastrophe in the U.S., I have less appetite for commenting on the ridiculous American Philosophical Association, the posturing, preening wankers in our "profession," my stalkers etc. What we are up against now is deadly serious and frightening, notwithstanding the fact that there is no reason to think most Americans support Trump. That hardly matters. What matters is that Trump and his fascist allies are, or are about to be, in power. But I realize that we may survive this, and that students and faculty are still looking for information relevant to planning their academic affairs, and other readers are looking for interesting philosophy-related material and the like, so I will resume relevant posting and I am committed to finish the academic year 2016-17 with philosophy-related blogging. I will continue to offer some political news and commentary as well, but not as frequent as since the electoral catastrophe. Thanks for reading.

Here's a subject on which philosophers and other scholars might actually be useful: the philosophy of Julius Evola, the uses to which it has been put, what it means that one of Trump's most important advisers has a strong, sympathetic interest in him and "traditionalism"? Links to resources welcome as well.

This transcript of a talk he gave to a conference at the Vatican from 2014 is revealing: he lashes out at "crony capitalism" and "Ayn Rand capitalism," but lauds "Judeo-Christian capitalism" that produced wealth that was broadly shared (it's unclear whether he notices it was broadly shared only because of agitation from the left that produced the social welfare state, progressive taxation and so on--indeed, I think it's fair to say he has no idea). He thinks the two big enemies are "securalism" and "Islamic jihadism." The latter is no surprise, the former is, and indicates that there's something much more sinister and nutty at work here. Consider this:

When Vladimir Putin, when you really look at some of the underpinnings of some of his beliefs today, a lot of those come from what I call Eurasianism; he’s got an adviser who harkens back to Julius Evola and different writers of the early 20th century who are really the supporters of what’s called the traditionalist movement, which really eventually metastasized into Italian fascism. A lot of people that are traditionalists are attracted to that.

One of the reasons is that they believe that at least Putin is standing up for traditional institutions, and he’s trying to do it in a form of nationalism — and I think that people, particularly in certain countries, want to see the sovereignty for their country, they want to see nationalism for their country. They don’t believe in this kind of pan-European Union or they don’t believe in the centralized government in the United States. They’d rather see more of a states-based entity that the founders originally set up where freedoms were controlled at the local level.

MOVING TO FRONT: ORIGINALLY POSTED MAY 11, 2016--folks keep sending me this quote, which is circulating again

==================

Jerry Dworkin calls my attention to this NYRB piece on Donald Chump, which includes this:

I recalled a remark that the philosopher Richard Rorty made back in 1997 about “the old industrialized democracies…heading into a Weimar-like period.” Citing evidence from “many writers on socioeconomic policy,” Rorty suggested that:

members of labor unions, and unorganized unskilled workers, will sooner or later realize that their government is not even trying to prevent wages from sinking or to prevent jobs from being exported. Around the same time, they will realize that suburban white-collar workers—themselves desperately afraid of being downsized—are not going to let themselves be taxed to provide social benefits for anyone else.

At that point, something will crack. The nonsuburban electorate will decide that the system has failed and start looking around for a strongman to vote for—someone willing to assure them that, once he is elected, the smug bureaucrats, tricky lawyers, overpaid bond salesmen, and postmodernist professors will no longer be calling the shots….

One thing that is very likely to happen is that the gains made in the past forty years by black and brown Americans, and by homosexuals, will be wiped out. Jocular contempt for women will come back into fashion…. All the resentment which badly educated Americans feel about having their manners dictated to them by college graduates will find an outlet.

Let's hope Rorty sticks to his track record, and is wrong about this too.

Reader Michael Swanson sends along this interview with Chomsky post-election, which contains some useful perspective. However, I think he's wrong in treating climate change as the main issue; the sad truth is that most of the disastrous effects of climate change are already locked in, the only questions now are ones of timing and perhaps some of degree. Will four years of inaction or reverse action by the U.S. on climate change matter? I asked a colleague who is expert on climate change, and he gave me permission to share his take:

So after spending most of Wednesday in a fetal position, trying not to either vomit or cry, I am now going to be as optimistic as I think I can justify. So, with the possibility that I am whistling past a graveyard, here is the potential story, and I think this one is not that far off.

US emissions reductions in the electricity sector have not gone down because of federal actions. Instead, they have come down because (1) fracking has pushed gas prices so low that coal is not competitive – nobody builds a new coal plant now – and (2) state level renewable portfolio standards mandate wind and other renewables. Neither of those will change with the new administration and in fact, if Trump pushes fracking on federal lands, gas prices may go even lower. For this reason, repealing the CPP ["Clean Power Plan"] may have little or no effect on electric sector emissions. The biggest impact I see from repealing CPP is that some old coal plants stay open longer. Plus (and here I have no information), Trump might push nuclear which would be fantastic for emissions, particularly because we need nuclear as a base load if we are to ramp up wind and solar.

Transportation emissions are the other big sector that Obama regulated. He did this through the fleet MPG [miles pre gallon] standards. There may be some push to roll these back but we will see. Regardless, MPG continues to go up and the auto industry will likely continue to make internal combustion engines more efficient. Other transportation fuels such as electricity are a niche product. They will repeal the tax credit for electric cars, but I don’t see that as mattering very much in the short run. So maybe transportation emissions will stay flat.

This means that the US emissions profile may look pretty much the same under Trump as it would have under Clinton (leaving aside that she may have enacted new laws). Climate change is a very long term problem and modest changes in emissions in any four year period do not matter very much. It is the stock not the flow of carbon dioxide that determines the extent of climate change. Delaying reductions, however, will make it more expensive in the future to achieve the necessary reductions.